2. Contact Info

3. Dealer Selection

Eighties punk group the Dead Milkmen used to sing about “doughnuts on your lawn” in their song “Bitchin’ Camaro,” even though Chevy‘s original ponycar had become, by that time, a bloated, post-fuel-crisis anachronism often found in the driveways of mullet-haired metalheads–something Beavis and Butthead aspired to drive.

When it met its timely demise in 2002, it was all that, with two decades of nondevelopment tacked on. Still, Chevrolet called its dismissal a hiatus, and the rank-and-file faithful inside and outside GM began drawing their versions of “the new Camaro” on the backs of notebooks.

A powerful contingent within GM had no interest in reviving the nameplate, and when plans for the GTO and Solstice emerged, it was clear Pontiac wouldn’t need a new “F-body” Firebird for its lineup–that was before anybody had any idea how big a hit Ford‘s 2005 retro-‘Stang would be.

It’ll be the next decade before we know whether the U.S. market has room for three postmodern ponycars. The original Dodge Challenger lasted only four years, and in its final ones, the last F-bodies, Camaro and Firebird combined, fell far short of the Mustang in sales. But if you want to know whether GM should produce the Chevy Camaro, the answer here is a resounding “yes.”

GM began work on this Camaro concept at the beginning of 2005, several months into Mustang sales–but before the existence of a Challenger concept came to light. Halfway through the year, GM grabbed the project from its advanced studio and gave it to C6 leader Tom Peters, whose team had come up with an alternative design.

“About midsummer, Ed [Welburn, GM design veep] asked me to get involved. We got it done very fast.” But, “the advanced team established the proportions” of the Camaro, Peters says. His studio’s changes weren’t major, just squeezing the shape and making it more muscular. Peters says he wanted the car to look like an aggressive street fighter. But he wanted good, lean proportions. “The car has to reflect the cultural changes since 1969.”

Peters cites jet aircraft, the inspiration for most every 1946 to 1969 American car made, and the C6 Corvette, for which he led the design, as other inspirations. The Camaro concept has “Corvette spice,” he says–another key reason Chevy needs to sell the car. The C6, and especially the Z06, is the most desirable and best-reviewed GM product worldwide, but it has precious little to do with the rank-and-file, affordable-class Chevy line. A $25,000 Camaro V-8 would provide sporty, more affordable small-block fanfare.

Reaching back to 1969 also gave the design team a chance to connect with the pinnacle of Bill Mitchell design philosophy. The Camaro concept’s tight, modernesque nose and its taillamp treatment are almost straight off the 1969. Its Coke-bottle shape, with front and rear fenders curving out from the door panels, is pure Mitchell, reflecting what he did with many Chevys and some Pontiacs, Oldsmobiles, Buicks, and even Cadillacs of the late-1960s and early 1970s. The raked C-pillar is faster than the 1969’s, but has the same basic shape. “I don’t subscribe to the retro philosophy,” Peters says. “But you have to recognize heritage.”

It’s a signal that GM ‘s popular-price rear-drive program is alive and that it understands how rear drive is becoming the standard again for larger cars. Imagine the next Impala, sporting cues from the 1966 off whatever platform this is. And Buick had best have a larger sedan–the Velite and perhaps a modern Skylark convertible as a halo would be nice–off the platform to compete with Chrysler‘s 300, if it wants to survive past its current generation of buyers.

GM isn’t talking about the Camaro concept’s platform, yet. We know it’s a mishmash of parts, probably something that would form the next rear-drive Holden architecture, previously known as Zeta (GTO). If GM has done a fair amount of development on it, an approved Camaro should arrive about 2009 or 2010, in time to compete with the Challenger. Based on our experiences with the GTO, the platform will have to be substantially updated to meet the Camaro concept’s mission to have “day-to-day liveability and function.”

As for what’s on top of those mystery underpinnings, it’s nicely done. The concept shows what Chevrolet needs to return power and excitement to the people, the vast majority of buyers for whom $25K is plenty of money for a car–although we wonder if it won’t be more like $30K in another five model-years’ time.

Peters and his design team have their fingers on the pulse of our cultural zeitgeist, as evidenced by the music they played in the studio while working on the car; not Traffic or Jefferson Airplane, but the more modern interpreters of retro sound: My Chemical Romance, Fall Out Boy, and Green Day.

BMW design.

• Tail is 1969-esque, but has two pairs of round taillamps inset.Interior

• Chunky Diesel brand watches inspired the analog gauges.

• Seating is 2+2, with the billet aluminum center console extending to the rear, unlike the 1969, which had a rear bench seat.

• Backlit orange part of the upper dash looks like late-1960s Camaro’s two-tiered dash, but meets modern standards, with storage and knee bolsters. The wide-open dash is designed to get away from the typical sports-car cockpit feel, says designer Jeff Perkins.

• Deep buckets aren’t too deep, making ingress/egress easy.

• Four-pack of gauges forward of the modern-style shifter are a new interpretation of an option available on 1969 models. “They’re probably my favorite part,” Perkins says.

• Stereo and heating/vent/ air-conditioning controls are simple one-button (each) operation, with readouts on the orange panel at the top of the dash. They’re iPod-inspired, Perkins says.